2.None of the alternatives presented to opponent will result in the inferior position for yourself, if opp "finds" it.

3.Any line of it allows opp to equalize, if an unrelated favorable line exists or one which is assessable as "unclear".

[If you are happy to draw then #3 need not apply].

The above are primarily for corr. play, or otb vs an opponent you are capable of "being in the game" with. If someone was going to clean my clock Anyway ... I might play a trappy if it is deep/subtle enough; even if a line found could give me a worse position. Also the opponents clock situation may be a consideration. If they are in their "nervous zone" on time [and you can usually tell]. For some players that is the last two minutes. Some will absolutely fall apart with 15 left~!

Thats my thoughts spurtus. But while I may be considered a sacrificial player, it is usually only if I can See a gain from it. Or a very good looking speculative effort. So I am actually more conservative than others may think. And shy away from looking for anything in the nature of a "quick" win, if it is also cheap/unsound looking. On the otherhand, I also consider opponents and not just the board postion. [I didnt used to, and that made me even more conservative, as I would take longer to win vs much lower rated opponents, rather than make an "improper" move] EG. If I know knew I might come out with a slightly inferior ending position from him finding the correct continuation, I might risk it if I think I can outplay him in the ending anyway. Especially if I think I can because of superior understanding. Rather than just time advantage or his feeing some discomfort in such a position. [ Tho I am Very Big on giving opponent discomfort! I figure That is worth 3/4 pawn or more.]

What do you think about it, spurtus? Will you feel deprived if you do eliminate that? If I were you, I would look and see just how many rating points and game points you have actually given up in games where you gambled. I have a philosophy that a player who never loses, is not playing aggressively enough. {Except for John Penquite~!!} :)

ccmcacollister
110 ( +1 | -1 )SPURTUS ... I just thought of something, I have never considered before. Wouldn't it be great to have some System for assessing just how much of a "Gamble" a certain line would be? Perhaps numeric. Some ratio of risk to reward to potential that opp would find the right line, vs how many line options exist ... or some such manner in which we could really begin to quantify the odds ?! It would be very interesting to me, if some such system could be developed, so I may give it some more thought this week, and see if anything occurs to me that is not too unwieldy to be of benefit. I wonder if it might be beneficial to try to go over and categorize various games or position types, such as from the games of Tal, Bronstein, Velimirovic, Kasparov, etc. And award "points" for certain features found in the game(s). So as to build a d-base of comparison. Have you any thoughts on the idea? [ Or anyone ?] { Long-ago there was a book called Point-Count Chess. I wonder if this, or "Berliners" ~what does he call them; "clumps" or something??!~ are usable in such a manner? }

chessnovice
34 ( +1 | -1 )...Some of my best play has come out of trying to climb out of blunders. I spent one year intentionally giving material away just to see how I would try to get it back. Even though I lost a lot of games, I feel like it opened my eyes a bit to decent midgame play. So I don't see anything wrong with testing uncharted territory, if you can afford it.